Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Luis C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and David Easterwood, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration
and Customs Enforcement ,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-0636 (SRN/SGE)
ORDER
Taylor R. Stemler, Merchant & Gould, P.C., 150 S. 5th St., Ste. 2200, Minneapolis, MN
55402, for Petitioner
Ana Voss and Trevor Brown, U.S. Attorney’s Office, 300 S. 4th St., Minneapolis, MN
55415, for Respondents
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Before the Court is the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) [Doc. No.
1] filed by Petitioner Luis C. 	Petitioner seeks immediate release from detention, or a
prompt bond hearing in Immigration Court. 	Respondents oppose the Petition. (Resp’ts’
Opp’n [Doc. No. 5].)
CASE 0:26-cv-00636-SRN-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 7

2
The Court has taken the Petition under advisement on the papers. For the reasons
set 	forth 	below, 	the 	Petition 	is 	granted 	and 	Respondents 	shall 	release 	Petitioner
immediately.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador who has lived in the United States since 2023.
(Pet. ¶ 12.) 	He has a pending asylum application and is not subject to a final order of
removal. (Id. ¶ 13.) Petitioner lives in Minneapolis with his partner, who is pregnant with
his child. (Id. ¶ 14.)
Respondents arrested Petitioner on January 23, 2026, when he appeared for a
scheduled immigration meeting at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building at Fort
Snelling. (Id. ¶15.) Respondents are detaining him in ICE custody at the Sherburne County
Jail in Elk River, Minnesota. See Dep’t of Homeland Sec., U.S. Immigration & Customs
Enforcement, Online Detainee Locator Sys., https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search (last
accessed Jan. 28, 2026).
After his arrest, Petitioner filed the instant Petition on January 25, 2026, asserting
that he is entitled to immediate release, or, in the alternative, a bond hearing. (Pet. ¶ 1.)
In the Court’s January 25, 2026 Order to Show Cause, the Court enjoined
Respondents from moving Petitioner out of Minnesota until further order of the court.
(OSC [Doc. No. 4] ¶ 4.) The Court also ordered Respondents to show cause for the “true
cause and proper duration of Petitioner’s confinement,” and directed Respondents to
address “[w]hether the absence of a warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest necessitates
Petitioner’s immediate release.” (Id. ¶¶ 1, 2(e).)
CASE 0:26-cv-00636-SRN-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and is therefore not entitled to release. 	Their position is consistent
with new interim guidance from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)/ICE, and
a recent decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) finding that all persons
who enter the United States without inspection, including those who have been residing
here for some time, are “applicants for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a), subject to
mandatory detention, rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a). 	Maldonado v.
Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134, 1150 (D. Minn. 2025) (noting interim guidance); Matter of
Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). Respondents invoke their prior positions,
as set forth in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), currently pending
before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Resp’ts’ Opp’n at 1.) It is their position that
as a matter of statutory interpretation, Petitioner falls under the provisions of 8 U.S.C. §
1225, not § 1226, and therefore, is not entitled to release. 	They concede that the instant
Petition raises legal and factual issues similar to those in prior habeas petitions this Court
has decided.1 (Id.)
1 	Respondents 	do 	not 	challenge 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	or 	administrative
exhaustion. Nevertheless, the Court briefly addresses these issues. As to jurisdiction, the
Court finds that none of the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 apply to
the question of whether mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) or discretionary detention
under § 1226(a) applies. See Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Minn. 2025).
As to exhaustion, requiring administrative 	exhaustion would be futile in light of
Hurtado. See Ortiz v. Freden, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-CV-960-LJV, 2025 WL 3085032,
at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 4. 2025) (finding exhaustion of remedies would be futile, even if
petitioner had not exhausted his remedies). Immigration judges would be obliged to follow
Hurtado’s ruling on the scope of § 1225(b)(2)(A).
CASE 0:26-cv-00636-SRN-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 7

4
II. 	DISCUSSION
While the parties dispute whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or § 1226(a) of the INA
applies to a noncitizen who is already residing in the United States, there is no dispute that
Petitioner was arrested while already residing in the United States.
This Court has previously found, along with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals—
the only circuit court to have addressed the issue—and the vast majority of district courts
throughout the country, that the applicable detention scheme for noncitizens already
residing in the country is under § 1226(a), absent any exceptions under § 1226(c).
Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Minn. 2025), E.M. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-
3975 (SRN/DTS), 2025 WL 3157839 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025); Castañon-Nava v. U.S.
Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060–62 (7th Cir. 2025); see also Demirel v. Fed.
Detention Ctr., No. 25-5488, 2025 WL 3218243, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2025) (collecting
cases); Reyes v. Raycraft, No. 25-12546, 2025 WL 2609425, at *6–7 (E. D. Mich. Sept. 9,
2024) (collecting cases); Yulexi T. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-68 (ECT/DTS), 2026 WL 77022, at
*2 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2026); Kelvin N. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-32 (JMB/JFD), 2026 WL
63423, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Jan. 8, 2026); Iishaar-Abdi v. Klang, No. 25-CV-4686
(JRT/DTS), 2025 WL 3764853, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 30, 2025); Awaale v. Noem, No. 25-
cv-4551 (MJD/JFD), 2025 WL 3754012, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 29, 2025); Hugo v. Olson,
No. 25-cv-4593 (LMP/DTS), 2025 WL 3688074, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025); Lionel
V.F. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4474 (PJS/LIB), 2025 WL 3485600, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 4,
2025). 	By contrast, § 1225(b)(2) applies to noncitizens at or near the border. 	Ortiz v.
Freden, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-CV-960-LJV, 2025 WL 3085032, at *10 (W.D.N.Y.
CASE 0:26-cv-00636-SRN-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Nov. 4. 2025). Respondents do not assert that any of the exceptions under § 1226(c) apply.
The 	Court 	remains 	unpersuaded 	by 	Respondents’ 	statutory 	interpretation 	of 	§§
1225(b)(2)(A), but notes that Respondents’ arguments are preserved for appeal.
Having determined that § 1225(b) is 	inapplicable to 	Petitioner, 	who would
otherwise fall under § 1226(a), the Court turns to the appropriate remedy. Section 1226(a)
provides that “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and
detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.”
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (emphasis added). The statute requires the issuance of a warrant as a
precursor to detention under § 1226(a). Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4711 (ECT/SGE),
2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (citing Chogllo Chafla v. Scott, --- F. Supp.
3d ---, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sept. 21, 2025), appeal filed (Nov. 6, 2025);
J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 27, 2025)). “[I]t follows that absent a warrant a noncitizen may not be arrested
and detained under section 1226(a).” Chogllo Chafla, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (emphasis
in original).
Petitioner alleges that upon information and belief, he was arrested and detained
without a warrant. (Pet. ¶¶ 31, 54.) Although the Court’s Order to Show Cause required
Respondents to address “[w]hether the absence of a warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest
necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release,” (OSC ¶ 2(e)), Respondents have not produced
a warrant, nor any other documentation supporting Petitioner’s detention. 	Section 1226(a)
requires, in the first instance, that Petitioner’s arrest and detention are authorized by the
issuance of a warrant. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); Vedat C. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS)
CASE 0:26-cv-00636-SRN-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 5 of 7

6
(D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025). Again, Respondents have failed to produce, much less address,
§ 1226(a)’s warrant requirement here. 	Petitioner’s arrest and detention are therefore
unauthorized.
As other judges in this District have found, the appropriate remedy for detention
that lacks a proper statutory basis under § 1226(a) is release. Ahmed M., 2026 WL 25627,
at *3 (finding release the appropriate remedy where Respondents did not produce a
warrant); Juan S.R. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-0005 (PJS/LIB) (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 2026) [Doc.
No. 8 at 3–4] (following the reasoning of Ahmed M. and ordering immediate release where
Respondents failed to present evidence of a warrant); Vedat C. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4642
(JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025) [Doc. No. 9] at 6] (“[A] bond hearing presupposes
lawful detention authority under § 1226. 	Where that authority has not been invoked or
established, ordering a bond hearing would treat the absence of statutory power as a mere
procedural irregularity rather than a substantive defect.”). “Habeas relief . . . addresses the
lawfulness of custody itself,” and “[f]or detention that lacks a lawful predicate, release is
an available and appropriate remedy.” Vedat C., No. 25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn.
Dec. 19, 2025) [Doc. No. 9] at 6]. Accordingly, Respondents shall release Petitioner from
custody.
Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner’s request for release, as set forth below.
III. 	ORDER
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that
CASE 0:26-cv-00636-SRN-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 6 of 7

7
1. 	Petitioner Luis C.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is
GRANTED, as follows:
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody immediately, but no later than
within 48 hours.
3. 	Prior to Petitioner’s release, Respondents must first notify Petitioner’s legal
counsel of his impending release, including the location of his release and
approximate release time, so that Petitioner’s counsel may make transportation
arrangements and Petitioner’s counsel may notify family members.
4. 	Upon release, Respondents shall return to Petitioner his identifying documents,
immigration documents, paperwork of any kind, his cell phone, and any other
personal belongings, including clothing and jewelry.
5. 	Respondents shall confirm Petitioner’s release within 48 hours from the date of
this Order.
6. 	Respondents may not re-detain Petitioner under a statutory theory this Court has
rejected in this proceeding absent materially changed circumstances.
Dated: January 28, 2026 	s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00636-SRN-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 7 of 7